Litigation Funding: In-House Counsel Perspective
Senior VP, Head of Litigation, Investigations & Regulatory at Fortune 500 Company
inpractise.com/articles/litigation-funding-in-house-counsel-perspective
Senior VP, Head of Litigation, Investigations & Regulatory at Fortune 500 Company
Current Senior VP, Head of Litigation, Investigations & Regulatory at a Fortune 500 company. The executive manages global disputes and regulatory affairs, with a focus on litigation funding for commercial disputes and class actions with a team of 63 litigators.
Interview Transcript
This is a snippet of the transcript, sign up to read more.
Yes, that's what I meant. But what does the CFO think of that?
The CFO appreciates this structure because it transforms us from a cost center into a neutral or profitable center. I'll elaborate on this later when we discuss how we engage with funders for evaluation. We have a very conservative profile due to our history, approach, value at risk model, and provisioning methodology. Over the past 20 years, we have consistently generated EBIT and cash because we evaluate our defenses and claims conservatively, which results in over-provisioning. This is not a mistake, but a sign of prudence. Our claim assessments tend to be conservative, and while we don't win all of them, we often outperform our own internal assessments. This is an ideal situation for a funder and a CFO to neutralize the cost impact of a legal department.
This is a snippet of the transcript, sign up to read more.
The end result of winning two cases was net positive for you, even if you had to pay a premium along the way?
If we had allocated to the funder a reward of around 12% to 15%, instead of the 28% to 30% they were asking for, we would have been better off funding the cases. However, at 28%, the decision was straightforward.
This is a snippet of the transcript, sign up to read more.
Related Content
Copyright Notice
This document may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means including resale of any part, unauthorised distribution to a third party or other electronic methods, without the prior written permission of IP 1 Ltd.
IP 1 Ltd, trading as In Practise (herein referred to as "IP") is a company registered in England and Wales and is not a registered investment advisor or broker-dealer, and is not licensed nor qualified to provide investment advice.
In Practise reserves all copyright, intellectual and other property rights in the Content. The information published in this transcript (“Content”) is for information purposes only and should not be used as the sole basis for making any investment decision. Information provided by IP is to be used as an educational tool and nothing in this Content shall be construed as an offer, recommendation or solicitation regarding any financial product, service or management of investments or securities. The views of the executive expressed in the Content are those of the expert and they are not endorsed by, nor do they represent the opinion of In Practise. In Practise makes no representations and accepts no liability for the Content or for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies will in no way be held liable for any potential or actual violations of laws, including without limitation any securities laws, based on Information sent to you by In Practise.
© 2024 IP 1 Ltd. All rights reserved.